Re: killing someone who is trying to rob you
 

[ QUOTE ]
pergesu, wtfsvi,

Who makes up the courts? Individuals, each prone for error? Or robotic scientists who always get the facts right?

[/ QUOTE ] Courts are definitely not perfect, but I can't think of a better solution.

[ QUOTE ]
Say some dude breaks into my house. Threatens me, wants my worldly possessions. Some big committee can more accurately assess what was going on there than I can? They're going to be right more often than I am? Based on second hand accounts, and input from the mugger's lawyer who's getting paid to clear his client's name?

[/ QUOTE ] Say this dude is crazy and thiks your house is really his house. He thinks finding you there means he has the right to kill you. This is his morality. Or say he thinks he has the right to steal your stuff, and if you try to stop him he can kill you. Why is your morality any better than his? Who do you think has the authoroty to decide who is right? The law and some big commitee probably? Also, no. I don't think a big committee will be better suited to figure out what happened than you are, but I do think that a big committee will be better suited to give a fair punishment (like not the death penalty). I also think this horrible person hired to clear the criminal's name is a great thing, because I think the criminal has the right to tell his side of the story as well. These are the main reasons we can't leave it up to individuals. People have different oppinions on what is right and wrong, especially when it comes to the degree of punishment. Then there is the slippery slope earlier mentioned by pergesu.

[ QUOTE ]
You're essentially arming the criminals with your philosophy. It's much safer to threaten when you don't have to worry about any violent, potentially deadly repercussions. And your assessment of the average citizen is insulting, frankly. We're not a bunch of retards who can't think, discriminate between right and wrong, and need a parental government to get us through a sticky situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. Everyone can discriminate between right and wrong. The point is that everyone will discriminate differently because everyone has their own set of moral codes. Do you propose everyone gets to do whatever they feel is right, or does that only apply to you and people that agree with your morality in the situation at hand?

[ QUOTE ]
But I believe whole heartedly in a person's right to defend himself.

[/ QUOTE ] Good for you. So do I.

Re: killing someone who is trying to rob you
 

I'd have no problem killing a scumbag, you may even be saving the lives of others he might attack in the future.... a putter would be the weapon of choice [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: killing someone who is trying to rob you
 

[ QUOTE ]
some background on the question...

i am at a bar last night in nicaragua with some people from my hostel having a good time, and this brittish girl decides to kill the mood by getting political and bringing up this incident and trying to critize people from the US for our violent culture or whatever.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/...sta-rica_x.htm

she said that the guy shouldnt have acted in self defense, and that everyone should have just handed over their money. she also said there was no excuse for killing the mugger, everyone disaggreed, but it got me thinking maybe there are more people out there who think this way.



so, if you were approached by an armed gunman who demanded money, and you could kill him in self defense and escape unharmed, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Take the British girl's money, obv.

Re: G. Gordon Liddy\'s Advice on Shooting Muggers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how many does he need?

[/ QUOTE ]
Even in the UK it is not a crime to:
1. Live alone.
2. Be poor to the point where your home is of lower quality.
3. Turn you lights off.

All these other details he provided added no weight to his argument.... Got it?

[/ QUOTE ]

not against the law but the way the tax system works single people get done over anyway

Re: G. Gordon Liddy\'s Advice on Shooting Muggers
 

how likely does it have to be that the mugger is going to shoot you for it to be OK to shoot him. 10%? 0.000001%?

[Assuming it is a situation where he is threatening to shoot you but you have a "hidden" loaded gun pointed at him]

Re: killing someone who is trying to rob you
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Violent culture? lol. I'll take my country's "violent culture" of victims killing their assailants over other nations' "violent cultures" of assailants robbing and killing their unarmed victims any day.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

This British girl hears a story about elderly American tourists getting robbed by armed Costa Ricans and her reaction is that Americans suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why this whole idea of the US reuniting with the world is complete [censored]. We appear to be the only ones with our heads not completely up our asses.

Re: killing someone who is trying to rob you
 

[censored] ya !

Re: killing someone who is trying to rob you
 

wtfsvi,


Oh boy man. Let's dissect this.
[ QUOTE ]
Say this dude is crazy and thiks your house is really his house. He thinks finding you there means he has the right to kill you. This is his morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

His "morality" is based on falsehoods, so it's inherently false. Him thinking the house is his doesn't make it his.. it's my house, and I have the right to defend it. This is pretty obvious. Unfortunately for him, when he comes in wielding a gun, I won't have time to perform a psych eval. And I'm not going to hole myself up in a closet, hope he doesn't wander into my kids' rooms for the rare case that it's really just a harmless mentally deranged psycho.

[ QUOTE ]
Or say he thinks he has the right to steal your stuff, and if you try to stop him he can kill you. Why is your morality any better than his?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Should I even answer this? A morality based on some false precept such as a right to steal and terrorize others clearly isn't moral. And you call my line of thinking a slippery slope.

[ QUOTE ]
Who do you think has the authoroty to decide who is right? The law and some big commitee probably?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in a person's right to act in a way he see fits when his rights are being infringed upon. It'll eventually reach a court of law, one way or the other. If the person is wrong, he'll be persecuted. That prevents some whack job shooting the mail man because he stepped on his grass. But when I and/or my family is in danger, I'm not going to hope the cops get there, catch the guy, and then spend the next 6 months hoping they lock the guy up. I'm going to do whatever it takes to ensure my/my family's safety. Sometimes that might be hiding in the basement. Sometimes it might be shooting the guy in the face.

I will say this: if the court's start deciding it's unjust for us to defend our homes, there's going to be a big problem.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, no. I don't think a big committee will be better suited to figure out what happened than you are, but I do think that a big committee will be better suited to give a fair punishment (like not the death penalty).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a punishment. It's an act of self defense.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think this horrible person hired to clear the criminal's name is a great thing, because I think the criminal has the right to tell his side of the story as well. These are the main reasons we can't leave it up to individuals. People have different oppinions on what is right and wrong, especially when it comes to the degree of punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, fine. Everyone has a right to a fair trial. But again, quit calling acts of self defense "punishment." I'm not punishing the guy who busts in my house pointing a gun.

Re: killing someone who is trying to rob you
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'd gladly pay $100 just to NOT kill a guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the saints go marching................

Re: killing someone who is trying to rob you
 

You know how few muggings end up in death or serious injury? No way I kill the guy.

If its gets to a point where you might get killed, obv you kill (ie Raymer style), but this is rare.

I think I side with annoying political chick.